| Tango01 | 06 Apr 2016 10:25 p.m. PST |
"An interactive map shows a wide variation of outcomes for "nuclear terrorism." When it comes to human health, all nuclear scenarios are not created equal. The Chernobyl disaster caused an estimated 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer, while the Fukushima power plant accident barely produced any. A dizzying number of variables go into understanding the damage that a particular nuclear or radiological device might have. But modeling the effects of such devices has become also become easier, and more public, thanks to the Internet. It's "no secret" that organizations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS "are interested in securing nuclear materials so they can use them for terrorist attacks," Dr. Timothy Jorgensen, a professor of radiation medicine at Georgetown University and the author of Strange Glow: The Story of Radiation, told an audience at the Center for Strategic International Studies on Monday…" link Main page
link Amicalement
Armand |
| Mako11 | 06 Apr 2016 11:38 p.m. PST |
Depending upon where and when they strike, and how effective it is at contaminating an area (even if not a mass casualty event), the financial costs will be enormous, if in a major, downtown, commercial area, airport, seaport, railyard, or trucking depot. |
| cosmicbank | 07 Apr 2016 3:28 a.m. PST |
It would be a 1000 times worse than a company stopping making figures before you finish your army. Even Worse than running out of paint on bank holiday weekend and the hobby store being closed, Man it would be bad. |
| Col Durnford | 07 Apr 2016 5:13 a.m. PST |
They are like potato chips. It won't stop with just one. |
| bsrlee | 07 Apr 2016 5:22 a.m. PST |
Unfortunately none of these ding bat organisations care about the consequent damage caused from any of their actions. They seem to be convinced that if they do enough damage in the here-and-now their God will come down and take them directly to their Heaven and end the World. So a large scale melt down would suit them as well or better than an actual nuclear explosion and its a LOT easier to carry out. |
| RavenscraftCybernetics | 07 Apr 2016 6:10 a.m. PST |
Im going out on a limb here and say "very bad" |
| boy wundyr x | 07 Apr 2016 6:59 a.m. PST |
I was going to say somewhere between "really bad" and "worse". |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 07 Apr 2016 7:09 a.m. PST |
The best scenario of nuclear terrorism I've read is the Tom Clancy novel The Sum of All Fears. |
| Col Durnford | 07 Apr 2016 7:13 a.m. PST |
As Robert W. Service said of another war:
"Some is bad, and some is worse". |
 Legion 4   | 07 Apr 2016 8:03 a.m. PST |
For those affected … it would be very bad, etc., … |
| Andrew Walters | 07 Apr 2016 8:46 a.m. PST |
There are a *lot* of variables around the type of device, how successfully it was engineered and built, where it was set off, and how well the local authorities responded. It could be less destructive than 9/11 at one end of the bell curve, and I don't want to think about the other end. |
| BrianW | 07 Apr 2016 12:33 p.m. PST |
|
| arngrimson | 25 Apr 2016 9:32 a.m. PST |
The thing is you don't even need a nuclear bomb a dirty bomb can be a lot worst, less damage but nuclear contamination covering a wide area that would take years to clean up, and if it's set off in a busy city… |
| Old Wolfman | 26 Apr 2016 6:56 a.m. PST |
And if they jacked some ICBMs or SLBMs complete w/ all warheads and such….. |
